Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Street (Ottawa)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus, especially since the article was improved. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Street (Ottawa)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a city street, not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for local roads. A city street is not automatically notable enough for its own article just because you can describe its physical characteristics, or even because you list the public transit routes that happen to use it -- the key to making a road notable enough is to show and reliably source some political, social or historical context for what makes it important. (For example, Christopher Street in New York City has an article, because it has a national historic designation as the nexus of the riot that changed LGBT history -- but the technically much busier arterial street in Toronto that I can spit onto from my bedroom window just has a redirect to a city neighbourhood it passes through, because its only real claim to notability is lending its name to that neighbourhood.) This, however, is referenced 5/7 to maps (and it was actually fully 3/4 mapsourced until I stripped the WP:CIRCULAR reference to a user-created Wikipedia map) -- and of the two sources that are actually text, one is a primary source government report from the municipal government, hence not a notability-building source, and the only one that's actually real WP:GNG-eligible media is a glancing namecheck of the street's existence in an article about the Confederation Line. Neither the context nor the sourcing here are enough to make a street notable enough for its own encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question There are other Ottawa streets that have pages that are less notable then this and those pages are even smaller (some referencing only one or even no sources). Should those pages be nominated for deletion as well? – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 03:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tag it for more development perhaps. Add a list of historic buildings along the street perhaps. It is the second street in from Wellington (Welllington runs in front of the parliament buildings, Sparks is the first street) in the capital of a nation which has reasonable economic and social and environmental policies and practices. I note there is Streets and highways of Washington, D.C. covering the capital of a lesser nation. There is List of roads in Ottawa which is not well-developed (it is just a list with no map and no discussion) but which could/should be better developed, and possibly some items like Queen Street could be merged/redirected to sections there, but there is no urgency IMO. --Doncram (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a pretty important street in Downtown Ottawa. The article just needs to be improved. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 20:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs to be improved. It is important though its use of the railing. I say keep and tag it. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the Keep votes so far have discussed sourcing, which is necessary for streets to be included in our encyclopedia. I agree with the nominator the sourcing for this street isn't quite there - three of the sources in the article are to Google Maps(!!). Also I've looked and found other articles about the street to try to improve the article, finding this [1] (interesting, but RS?), this webpage from the city [2], and these on the Confederation Line construction [3] [4]. I don't think any of these are significant/non-routine enough, and I can't find much else. If other Ottawa streets are more poorly sourced perhaps we should take a look at those as well, but WP:OSE. SportingFlyer talk 04:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying WP:OSE, I'm just asking, I can nominate them if you want. I think we should give the article time to grow and tag it, but I'll do what I can. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 21:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SportingFlyer. The article makes no claim of significance; it is a bland description similar to that which could be written about any street. Without in-depth coverage in RS, it is not notable. MB 14:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the article to talk more about the renewal, an historic burial site and other things. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY, Keep. BrandonXL has done considerable building of article during discussion. And street is part of a project to "urbanize" Ottawa with mass transit and pedestrian-friendly shopping/dining area of which Queen is part. Useful article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow the improved version, which has some sources, to be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the this source in the article and also 1, 2, 3 it is clearly a significant street disucssed in detail in reliable sources.--Pontificalibus 13:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.